Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
quoted text
> Patrick McHardy wrote:
>> - NETLINK_NO_CONGESTION_CONTROL seems a bit more descriptive than
>>   "NO_ENOBUFS"
>>
>> - The ENOBUFS error itself is actually not the problem, but the
>>   congestion handling. It still makes sense to notify userspace
>>   of congestion. I'd suggest to deliver the error, but avoid setting
>>   the congestion bit.
> 
> I thought about this choice but I see one problem with this. The ENOBUFS
> error is attached to the congestion control.

What do you mean by "attached to"? Congestion control is done by
setting and testing bit 0 of nlk->state.

quoted text
> If we keep reporting
> ENOBUFS errors to userspace with no congestion control, the listener may
> keep receiving ENOBUFS indefinitely. In other words, the congestion
> control seems to me like a way to avoid spamming ENOBUFS errors to
> userspace.

The error will be cleared by the next call to recvmsg().
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html